Quote:
Originally Posted by compiledkernel  I try to hold a certain concept of thought in my life. Recently I sat down and read Dawkins book, The God Delusion. The most striking of statement in it being "Religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion." As such Christian Extremists fall very clear into this category. I dont believe that Phelps and his ilk should be allowed to express such treasonous and unpatriotic notions (totally aside from their already outlandish Faith aspects towards Gays, Judaica, or any other likewise group that doesnt fall under their halo) in the ways they do. So my question was, why let them? |
I agree with you in that I would prefer it if he and his crew would stop showing up at funerals and booing dead soldiers, etc. However, we cannot tell Phelps
et. al that they can't express their views, as if we do, what makes us any better? Once we say that someone is not free to speak, whether what they're saying is "treasonous and unpatriotic" or not, we become the arbiter of what is acceptable speech. That would make us fascists.
As to religious moderates paving the way for extremists, I do agree. However, I am not in any way a religious man, and as a result my views are very different from those of religious people. To me, everyone who asserts religious belief as fact and piousness and faith as virtues is a little delusional. But, each and every one of them is protected under the Freedom of religion. Thus, short of banning all religions (and the Freedom thereof), it would be impossible to censure Phelps and his followers.